First Rate Crowd is developing an Economic Inequality Rating App (EIRA). This Rating App will provide clear guidelines as to which products, services, individuals, or organizations are beneficially aligned with the 99%-Crowd. It is an easy and convenient way to selectively boycott the wealthy elite of the 1%-Crowd while simultaneously bringing the revenue they would normally receive back to the 99%. This is accomplished without manipulating any laws, voting anyone into office, or changing any taxes. It is the most powerful technological idea to stop income and economic inequality. CLICK HERE to learn more about the EIRA and its associated technology.

The difficult aspect of this new technology is the development of a large and sophisticated database to support the app. This will cost many millions of dollars which is beyond the scope of this first phase project. To address this issue, and to provide a sustained revenue source to develop the app's data base, we are building the first-of-its-kind online crowd company that is principally owned, operated, and directed by the community through the principles of crowdsourcing and crowdfunding.

Our Mission Statement: to serve the crowdsourcing and crowdfunding community by developing our very own crowd company that we ourselves possess and operate in order to develop and implement an Economic Inequality Rating App (EIRA).

What Do You Get By Becoming A Member?Once our company is developed, you as a community member will receive the opportunity to help the community own the platform, set the direction of the company with your vote, earn cash rewards - and most importantly - stop income and economic inequality as the most existential threats to your life.

We understand that asking for $800,000 in funding from our newly formed community is a tall order. However, to build our own technological company of this size and scale to accommodate the revenue needs for building the database for the EIRA is costly. But, we also understand the consequences of not stopping these inequalities now will lead to the destruction of our humanity. Read the posts on the FirstRateCrowd website's forum, and we are confident you will come to the same conclusion.

Join Us On The Forum Below. Express your views and ideas — explore our ABOUT section to review aspects of our business plan. Together our community can build the EIRA to solve these inequalities and make the world a better place. Our future depends upon it.

Before you begin, CLICK HERE to learn about the Counter-Intuitive Impact Of Economic Inequality upon the problems of health and society. This speaks to the very core of the matter; Economic Inequality Is Harmful.

We are led to believe by the author that this is the reason most of what we think about inequality is wrong regardless of the vast trove of research pointing in the opposite direction.

Let me put a dead mouse into this punch bowl by making two points so no one drinks from it again.

First, consider the source.

MarketWatch is part of Dow Jones Media Group which is part of Dow Jones and Company which is owned by Rupert Murdoch who is extremely conservative. See the article below. He and his man-servants will do anything to take the focus off the real issues of income and economic inequality. Obviously rot starts at the top with the deception and spin of this article already raising quite a stink.

The Newsroom At Rupert Murdoch's WSJ Is Fed Up With Its "Galling" Pro-Trump Coverage
October 14, 2016 10:34 AM EDT ››› TYLER CHERRY

A cloud of “gloom” and “dismay” hangs over The Wall Street Journal’s newsroom, where journalists are reportedly disappointed with the paper’s superficial election coverage and “‘flattering’” treatment of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. Reporters at the Journal, whose parent company News Corp. is chaired by Rupert Murdoch, told Politico’s Joe Pompeo that the paper’s Trump coverage has been “‘galling’” and “‘absurd.’”
Pompeo wrote in Politico’s October 14 Morning Media newsletter that there is “seasonally appropriate gloom in the air” at the Journal’s newsroom over the paper’s “‘galling,’” “‘flattering’” pro-Trump “stories on the front [page]” and the “‘false balance in treating him just like another nominee.’” Pompeo’s Journal sources decried the paper’s superficial “‘process stories about the race, who’s up and down,’” and lamented the Journal’s Trump coverage as “‘neutral to the point of being absurd.’”

“Of course,” Pompeo wrote, the staff “probably saw it coming,” given both that the Journal’s editor-in-chief demanded that his reporters be “‘fair’” to Trump back in May and that the Journal is owned by Murdoch’s News Corp. Murdoch -- who also has played a hands-on role in leading his unabashedly pro-Trump Fox News Channel -- signaled months ago that “he plans to fully back Trump in the general election,” according to New York magazine.

Second, the author's argument is a false equivalency and should be rejected.

He states,

The short version is — there’s a much less stark gap between haves and have-nots measured this way. The researchers show that consumption inequality rose considerably less than income inequality over the past five decades. Between the early 1960s and 2014 income inequality grew by nearly 30% while inequality in consumption rose just 7%.

Here they are measuring the consumption of "goods" which is not the same as measuring the psychological and social impact this consumption has upon people. The effect of inequality is a bio-psycho-social phenomenon much of which takes place at a subconscious level. It needs to be interpreted in these terms and not by comparing apples to oranges.

For example, let's say you live in a beautiful house in AnyTown, USA, with a nice car in the driveway. Your neighbor, who lives next to you, has a very similar house with a similar car. In other words, you both posses a similar quantity and quality of goods. But one night you happen to attend a party at your neighbor's house and by mistake he or she happens to leave their check book lying out. By chance you can clearly see they have $10 million in their account. You also know you only have $30 thousand in your account. Now, how would this make you feel psychologically? And even if you could shake this fact from your conscious mind rationally, it would be gnawing away at your subconscious mind and emotions for a very long time. I will grant this is not the best example but I think it makes the point.

Better yet, the following reply to this article from its comment section puts the inaccurate deceptive spin clearly into perspective,

Adam Greene 7 hours ago

"Consumption inequality hasn't grown as much as income inequality."
No kidding. A guy who makes 1000 times more income than me doesn't eat 1000 times more food than me. Does he live in 1000 times more homes than me? Does he drive 1000 times more cars than me?

Surely Murdoch's yes-man of an employee is grabbing at straws and is well aware of this. Furthermore, his poor piece of reporting does not justify the use of such strong words in the article's title such as, "Most, think, and wrong." Perhaps he should apply these words to himself.

Having only a few people with most of the wealth, motivates others. This theory is actually wrong according to research.

A world where a few people have most of the wealth motivates others who are poor to strive to earn more. And when they do, they ll invest in businesses and other areas of the economy. That s the argument for inequality. But it s wrong.

Our study of 21 OECD countries over more than a 100 years shows income inequality actually restricts people from earning more, educating themselves and becoming entrepreneurs. That flows on to businesses who in turn invest less in things like plant and equipment.

People will always try to justify their world view even if it is wrong. One has only to look at the abundance of conspiracy theories about us. Worse yet, most of this is old conspiracy theory has been debunked years ago but people still cling onto it. The conservative brain structure of those individuals working for Rupert Murdock will want to justify their world view even if if means using deceptive results of the data they obtain to rationalize their position. And of course, there are those like Murdock himself, who will gladly use this deception and the ignorance of those reading his publications to maintain his wealth and position.

Jessica is correct when stating we must be vigilant and wary when reading research and articles trying to minimize the extent of income and economic inequality. Every war has their Joseph Goebbels, their ministers of propaganda, who will defend their position regardless of how immoral it is (not withstand their own religious heritage). What is worse are those who will present this disinformation knowing full well and being cognizant their reporting does not match reality to justify their own position as is the case with Steve Goldstein, the author of the original article. No doubt, as D.C. bureau chief for MarketWatch, he will receive accolades from his superiors for his good work. But to those of us, like Jessica with a keen eye and wit to match, he is seen as a bumbling fool and a mere lackey for the rich.

What follows is from the FRC's website home page, "CLICK HERE to learn about the Counter-Intuitive Impact Of Economic Inequality." It is a mountain of evidence revealing the real extent of economic inequality upon economic growth.

Two economic-publication excerpts below—one from Forbes and one from The Economist—bear out this relationship between wealth in the hands of the few at the top and consequent overall economic and biopsychosocial decline versus the relationship between an income share that benefits the masses as a whole and consequently prompts growth that benefits all of society.

"There is and has been a reduction of economic growth because of the growing concentration of income among a smaller portion of the global population."

"The new OECD analysis found a ‘negative and statistically significant’ correlation between income inequality and economic growth. Specifically, the 3 Gini point rise in inequality that was the average for OECD states over the last 20 years meant 0.35 percent less economic growth per year for the same time, or a total 8.5 percent GDP loss in that period."

"And on June 15th economists at the IMF released a study assessing the causes and consequences of rising inequality. The authors reckon that while inequality could cause all sorts of problems, governments should be especially concerned about its effects on growth. They estimate that a one percentage point increase in the income share of the top 20% will drag down growth by 0.08 percentage points over five years, while a rise in the income share of the bottom 20% actually boosts growth."

3 Myths About Globalization; Anyone Still Embracing These Three Myths Is Most Likely In The Pocket Of The Rich, Has A Screw Loose, Or Both.

From Jessica's post #1 on 08-08-17 I quote her as saying,

We are led to believe by the author that this is the reason most of what we think about inequality is wrong regardless of the vast trove of research pointing in the opposite direction.

Let me put a dead mouse into this punch bowl by making two points so no one drinks from it again.

I have just the correct the dead mouse for Jessica to put into people's punch bowl so they do not drink from it again. It comes in the form the Harvard Business Review, 40 Years of Data Suggests 3 Myths About Globalization, by Lucas Chancel, March 02, 2018 https://hbr.org/2018/03/40-years-of-dat ... balization

In summary,

Three beliefs about globalization have propagated since the early 1980s. First, that globalization leads to a reduction in global inequality. Second, that high income growth among the richest will lift the incomes of the poorest. Third, that there is no alternative to rising inequality without turning our backs on trade and technology. The recently released World Inequality Report, the first research study to comprehensively examine wealth and income inequality trends across rich and emerging countries over approximately 40 years, dispels these notions.

The first myth,

Globalization has led to a rise in global income inequality, not a reduction

Inequality between individuals across the world is the result of two competing forces: inequality between countries and inequality within countries. For example, strong growth in China and India contributed to significant global income growth, and therefore, decreased inequality between countries. However, inequality within these countries rose sharply. The top 1% income share rose from 7% to 22% in India, and 6% to 14% in China between 1980 and 2016.

The second myth,

Income doesn’t trickle down

The second belief contests that high growth at the top is necessary to achieve some growth at the bottom of the distribution, in other words that rising inequality is necessary to elevate standards of living among the poorest. However, this idea is at odds with the data.

The trickle-down myth may have been debunked, but its ideas are still rooted in a number of current policies. For example, the idea that high income growth for rich individuals is a precondition to create jobs and growth at the bottom continues to be used to justify tax reductions for the richest, as seen in recent tax reform in the U.S. and France. A closer look at the data demands we rethink the rationale and legitimacy of such policies.

The third myth,

Policy – not trade or technology – is most responsible for inequality

It is often said that rising inequality is inevitable — that it is a natural consequence of trade openness and digitalization that governments are powerless to counter. But the numbers presented above clearly demonstrate the diversity of inequality trajectories experienced by broadly comparable regions over the past decades.

Rather than openness to trade or digitalization, it is policy choices and institutional changes that explain divergences in inequality.

Anyone still promoting these 3 myths in their research or opinions needs to be scrupulously observed for either financial ties to the rich or flaws in logic and research. Not that there cannot be new research to the contrary, but as I have learned, "when you hear hoof beats in this country, it is best to look for horses and not zebras." The latter is most likely a Tijuana donkey painted with stripes to look like a zebra. Buyer beware!

People will always try to justify their world view even if it is wrong. One has only to look at the abundance of conspiracy theories about us. Worse yet, most of this is old conspiracy theory has been debunked years ago but people still cling onto it. The conservative brain structure of those individuals working for Rupert Murdock will want to justify their world view even if if means using deceptive results of the data they obtain to rationalize their position. And of course, there are those like Murdock himself, who will gladly use this deception and the ignorance of those reading his publications to maintain his wealth and position. ...

People will always try to justify their world view even if it is wrong. One has only to look at the abundance of conspiracy theories about us. Worse yet, most of this is old conspiracy theory has been debunked years ago but people still cling onto it. The conservative brain structure of those individuals working for Rupert Murdock will want to justify their world view even if if means using deceptive results of the data they obtain to rationalize their position. And of course, there are those like Murdock himself, who will gladly use this deception and the ignorance of those reading his publications to maintain his wealth and position.

Jessica is correct when stating we must be vigilant and wary when reading research and articles trying to minimize the extent of income and economic inequality. Every war has their Joseph Goebbels, their ministers of propaganda, who will defend their position regardless of how immoral it is (not withstand their own religious heritage). What is worse are those who will present this disinformation knowing full well and being cognizant their reporting does not match reality to justify their own position as is the case with Steve Goldstein, the author of the original article. No doubt, as D.C. bureau chief for MarketWatch, he will receive accolades from his superiors for his good work. But to those of us, like Jessica with a keen eye and wit to match, he is seen as a bumbling fool and a mere lackey for the rich.

What follows is from the FRC's website home page, "CLICK HERE to learn about the Counter-Intuitive Impact Of Economic Inequality." It is a mountain of evidence revealing the real extent of economic inequality upon economic growth.

Two economic-publication excerpts below—one from Forbes and one from The Economist—bear out this relationship between wealth in the hands of the few at the top and consequent overall economic and biopsychosocial decline versus the relat...

People will always try to justify their world view even if it is wrong. One has only to look at the abundance of conspiracy theories about us. Worse yet, most of this is old conspiracy theory has been debunked years ago but people still cling onto it. The conservative brain structure of those individuals working for Rupert Murdock will want to justify their world view even if if means using deceptive results of the data they obtain to rationalize their position. And of course, there are those like Murdock himself, who will gladly use this deception and the ignorance of those reading his publications to maintain his wealth and position.

Jessica is correct when stating we must be vigilant and wary when reading research and articles trying to minimize the extent of income and economic inequality. Every war has their Joseph Goebbels, their ministers of propaganda, who will defend their position regardless of how immoral it is (not withstand their own religious heritage). What is worse are those who will present this disinformation knowing full well and being cognizant their reporting does not match reality to justify their own position as is the case with Steve Goldstein, the author of the original article. No doubt, as D.C. bureau chief for MarketWatch, he will receive accolades from his superiors for his good work. But to those of us, like Jessica with a keen eye and wit to match, he is seen as a bumbling fool and a mere lackey for the rich.

What follows is from the FRC's website home page, "CLICK HERE to learn about the Counter-Intuitive Impact Of Economic Inequality." It is a mountain of evidence revealing the real extent of economic inequality upon economic growth.

Two economic-publication excerpts below—one from Forbes and one from The Economist—bear out this relationship between wealth in the hands of the few at the top and consequent overall economic and biopsychosocial decline versus the relat...

A suppressive totalitarian fortress, with thick walls built of lies and misrepresentations, is difficult to dismantle with pitchforks and torches. These conservative news people will stop at nothing to distort the truth especially by using selective ignorance. By this I mean they will selectively cherry pick what they want to be read to make their point; they want to keep the public ignorant by torpedoing known facts.

Here is an example about the Wall Street Journal's information suppression from Vanity Fair, This Is Censorship: W.S.J. Editor Tamps Down on This Income Inequality Nonsense The Wall Street Journal reporters in revolt say it isn't the first time. by Bess Levin, March 29, 2018. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/03 ... y-nonsense

The Wall Street Journal put together a feature about how the world has (and hasn't) changed since the crisis. It's an informative piece! Some of the things it reveals are that: Wall Street pay has bounced back from it's post-crisis lows; Happy days are here again for bank stocks; Virtually all of Donald Trump's regulators are now enforcing the industries that made them rich; The financial sector has once again become a larger segment of the economy, which could translate to future risks for borrowers and consumers in another crisis; and, Income inequality has increased sharply, with the top 1 percent controlling 38.7 percent of the nations wealth in 2016, up from 33.7 percent in 2007. On the other end, the bottom 90 percent share just 22.8 percent of the country''s wealth, down from 28.6 percent in 2007. None of which, apparently, a top editor at The Wall Street Journal wanted people to know, according to an e-mail that was circulated among staffers and the media earlier today, which read: This week a senior editor at the Wall Street Journal attempted to take a graphic offline because the facts it contained were not politically palatable. When that failed, it was de-surfaced, or, in other terms, taken off the front page and links were removed to it from as many places as possible. After an early flurry of traffic, views plummeted. This is censorship and it is beneath the standards of The Wall Street Journal.

It isn't the first time, either. This suppression is an example of what Sterling just wrote about totalitarianism in his post #16 written not long ago under the topic, "Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%." It all fits together. Here I present five signs of totalitarianism. The presence of any one of these offenses alone casts doubt about a leader's commitments to democratic political leadership. When they occur together, however, they raise the alarm that we may be witnessing a derailment of a political experiment that has taken two and half centuries to refine. Sign 3: Regime Suppresses Knowledge Producers. Purges of universities, media organizations, think tanks, nonpartisan government administrations, and research institutes are de rigeur under totalitarian regimes. Throughout his campaign, Trump continued to deny the role of human action in climate change, which was resonant with an earlier astounding claim that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by China. One must think carefully about what it takes to offer such a conclusion. Essentially, a leader must have distrust bordering on disdain for scientists to act from the belief that a great many highly educated people in prestigious organizations simply do not know what they are talking about.

This hijacking of the narrative from a position of research based truth to one that that is diminished and soiled is a constant theme in the Trump administration. All of this is in the name of giving individuals and corporations economic advantages to become wealthier and stronger while they maintain their grip upon our collective necks.

A suppressive totalitarian fortress, with thick walls built of lies and misrepresentations, is difficult to dismantle with pitchforks and torches. These conservative news people will stop at nothing to distort the truth especially by using selective ignorance. By this I mean they will selectively cherry pick what they want to be read to make their point; they want to keep the public ignorant by torpedoing known facts....

More Distortion Of The Truth

A suppressive totalitarian fortress, with thick walls built of lies and misrepresentations, is difficult to dismantle with pitchforks and torches. These conservative news people will stop at nothing to distort the truth especially by using selective ignorance. By this I mean they will selectively cherry pick what they want to be read to make their point; they want to keep the public ignorant by torpedoing known facts.

Here is an example about the Wall Street Journal's information suppression from Vanity Fair, This Is Censorship: W.S.J. Editor Tamps Down on This Income Inequality Nonsense The Wall Street Journal reporters in revolt say it isn't the first time. by Bess Levin, March 29, 2018. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/03 ... y-nonsense

The Wall Street Journal put together a feature about how the world has (and hasn't) changed since the crisis. It's an informative piece! Some of the things it reveals are that: Wall Street pay has bounced back from it's post-crisis lows; Ha...

It isn't the first time, either. This suppression is an example of what Sterling just wrote about totalitarianism in his post #16 written not long ago under the topic, "Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%." It all fits together. Here I present five signs of totalitarianism. The presence of any one of these offenses alone casts doubt about a leader's commitments to democratic political leadership. When they occur together, however, they raise the alarm that we may be witnessing a derailment of a political experiment that has taken two and half centuries to refine. Sign 3: Regime Suppresses Knowledge Producers. Purges of universities, media organizations, think tanks, nonpartisan government administrations, and research institutes are de rigeur under totalitarian regimes. Throughout his campaign, Trump continued to deny the role of human action in climate change, which was resonant with an earlier astounding claim that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by China. One must think carefully about what it takes to offer such a conclusion. Essentially, a leader must have distrust bordering on disdain for scientists to act from the belief that a great many highly educated people in prestigious organizations simply do not know what they are talking about.

This hijacking of the narrative from a position of research based truth to one that that is diminished and soiled is a constant theme in the Trump administration. All of this is in the name of giving individuals and corporations economic advantages to become wealthier and stronger while they maintain their grip upon our collective necks.

More Distortion Of The Truth

A suppressive totalitarian fortress, with thick walls built of lies and misrepresentations, is difficult to dismantle with pitchforks and torches. These conservative news people will stop at nothing to distort the truth especially by using selective ignorance. By this I mean they will selectively cherry pick what they want to be read to make their point; they want to keep the public ignorant by torpedoing known facts.

Here is an example about the Wall Street Journal's information suppression from Vanity Fair, This Is Censorship: W.S.J. Editor Tamps Down on This Income Inequality Nonsense The Wall Street Journal reporters in revolt say it isn't the first time. by Bess Levin, March 29, 2018. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/03 ... y-nonsense

The Wall Street Journal put together a feature about how the world has (and hasn't) changed since the crisis. It's an informative piece! Some of the things it reveals are that: Wall Street pay has bounced back from it's post-crisis lows; Ha...

It isn't the first time, either. This suppression is an example of what Sterling just wrote about totalitarianism in his post #16 written not long ago under the topic, "Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%." It all fits together. Here I present five signs of totalitarianism. The presence of any one of these offenses alone casts doubt about a leader's commitments to democratic political leadership. When they occur together, however, they raise the alarm that we may be witnessing a derailment of a political experiment that has taken two and half centuries to refine. Sign 3: Regime Suppresses Knowledge Producers. Purges of universities, media organizations, think tanks, nonpartisan government administrations, and research institutes are de rigeur under totalitarian regimes. Throughout his campaign, Trump continued to deny the role of human action in climate change, which was resonant with an earlier astounding claim that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by China. One must think carefully about what it takes to offer such a conclusion. Essentially, a leader must have distrust bordering on disdain for scientists to act from the belief that a great many highly educated people in prestigious organizations simply do not know what they are talking about.

This hijacking of the narrative from a position of research based truth to one that that is diminished and soiled is a constant theme in the Trump administration. All of this is in the name of giving individuals and corporations economic advantages to become wealthier and stronger while they maintain their grip upon our collective necks.

46% say Trump is doing a good job of making the country prosperous
35% say he is doing a good job on energy; 31% on protecting environment
Trump's ratings on issues fall behind those of Bush and Obama

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans are about as likely to say President Donald Trump is doing a good job as they are to believe he is doing a poor job of making the U.S. prosperous, 46% vs. 47%. However, Trump performs better on this measure than on two other issues on which he was rated in Gallup's annual Environment poll: energy and the environment.

This is our new American moment. There has never been a better time to start living the American Dream.

President Donald J. Trump

THE ECONOMY IS BOOMING: The economy is expanding rapidly under President Donald J. Trump’s leadership.

American optimism and excitement about the economy is growing under President Trump’s leadership.
According to Pew Research, Americans rating the economy good to excellent surged to 53 percent, the highest point in 18 years.

For another perspective, that deflates the notion of a "booming" economy, Catherine Rampell on 05-01-18 in the SJR (The State Journal-Register) presents the six following points in the article titled, Six questions about Trump’s economy you were too embarrassed to ask.http://www.sj-r.com/news/20180501/cathe ... sed-to-ask

Over the past few months, President Donald Trump has painted a portrait of a resurgence: After tanking under President Barack Obama, the economy has finally been Made Great Again.

Based on recent polls and my own reader email, much of the public believes this narrative. The word “booming” gets thrown around a lot.

But how has the economy actually performed under Trump? There is plenty of data to help us answer this question. So I bring you: Six questions about Trump and the economy you may have been too embarrassed to ask.

In truth, I think she uses the word "embarrassed" because all six points she makes are embarrassing compared to the rhetoric the Republicans are feeding their base.

The bottom line is to be extremely wary of the the misrepresentation presented by conservatives, and doubly wary of those who believe this soiled dribble.